render_sheet

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so unusually well: it states no viewport is needed (headless-capable), that the scene is not modified ('session untouched'), that a snapshot spawns a separate hython consuming a license seat, and warns of a Houdini 22 crash on a second in-process OpenGL render. None of this is inferable from the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and then Args, so structure is sound; the middle prose is slightly florid ('One image shows motion a single frame cannot') but each sentence still carries operative information about headless behavior, license use and the crash workaround.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter, annotation-free, output-schema-free tool, the description covers purpose, behavior, constraints and every parameter. The only minor gap is that it never says what the call returns (e.g. the written image path), which an agent must otherwise discover by inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the Args block is the only parameter documentation, and it covers all 7 parameters with defaults (camera, resolution [320,240], columns, output_path, step=1) plus a real constraint ('at most 64 frames in all'). This fully compensates for the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb (render), resource (frames start..end), mechanism (OpenGL ROP) and output form (tiled into one image). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like render_viewport, render_quad_view and start_render, which do not produce a tiled contact sheet.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It supplies a clear use case ('motion a single frame cannot: a sim's spread, a camera move') and a hard scope exclusion ('Objects (/obj) only, not a LOP stage'). It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g. render_viewport for a live viewport, start_render for a full-quality render), so routing is inferred rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.